Tuesday, October 04, 2011
TDSB on Parents: Screw You. Does the Ontario Liberal Party Agree?
TDSB refuses to hear concerns of parents on anti-discrimination curriculum
As the Ontario election showly plods toward its conclusion, it seems that the Liberal Party has become increasingly frustrated with its inability to take a lead and put this election away.
Now, they're resorting to their typical tactic of last resort: accusing their opponents of bigotry.
The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party has taken up the issue of the Toronto District School Board's anti-discrimination curriculum, placing it at the centre of the election. And rightfully so.
The Liberal Party and various far-left groups have predictably declared a new flier being distributed by the Tories to be "homophobic". It's typical far-left bully language, trying to intimidate their opponents into silence.
It was tried once before. When a controversial sex education program was proposed by the McGuinty government, any who objected to the education of Grade 6 students in matters such as anal sex were declared to be homophobic. Contrary to the intention of activist groups to intimidate religious groups, and ordinary parents, out of the debate, public pressure instead built until McGuinty's government was forced to postpone the changes for further consideration.
The TDSB apparently had no appetite for "further consideration", or even for public consideration at all. As reported by Michael Coren, the Equity Advisory Committee of the TDSB decided that public consultation was unnecessary.
One member of the committee who attempted to raise objections to the curriculum was shouted down and declared a homophobe by other members of the committee. The committee, when contacted by producers of Coren's show, were told that this woman was "only a parent." They also accused her of being "singularly destructive."
Nothing could make the attitude of these people toward parents any more clear: the concerns of parents are not to be heard, are not to be considered, are not even to be taken seriously.
They believe they have all the power, and it's their clear intention to deny any modicum of power to parents; at least to those who don't blindly support their extreme agenda.
It isn't that fighting bullying in schools through education is an extreme agenda. However, subjecting children to demagogic (not pedagogic) far-left reeducation programs over the objections of parents very clearly is.
Not everything within the TDSB anti-discrimination curriculum is extreme and outrageous. For example, teaching kids about different family structures is entirely reasonable; many of these children are already growing up in non-conventional family units, so this is very much a live issue for them.
The question of whether or not they're a boy or a girl, however, and the curriculum's teachings on transgendered persons, is not a live issue for these kids. And the recent case of Thomas Lobel, a California child who has apparently decided, on a whim, that he would rather be a girl than a boy.
His adoptive parents have decided to indulge this whim by putting him on hormone blockers, hoping that he can decide by puberty whether or not he wants to be a boy or a girl.
Anyone who imagines a child, even at age 14, is psychologically qualified to make that kind of life-defining decision, is simply out of their minds.
This case underscores precisely what is so irresponsible and reckless about what the TDSB wants to teach young children; planting the question in their heads about whether they are a boy or a girl long before they can be expected to make such a decision while understanding the gravity of the choice.
Contrary to claims by the Ontario Liberal Party, there is nothing inaccurate about the flier. It accurately reflects how eager the TDSB is to trample parental rights in their well-intentioned desire to stop the bullying of gay, lesbian and transgendered people in society.
It's not their intentions that are misguided; it's their actions.
The Toronto District School Board is apparently more than content to thumb its nose at the rights of parents. In jumping all over this issue, the Liberal Party seems to be sending a message to the parents of Ontario that it's willing to do the same.
They should not be rewarded at the polls for this. Quite the contrary: they should be punished with the loss of their government until such a time that they are willing to approach these issues responsibly.
Ben Quayle's Reelection Prospects Dim, Just a Little
Arizona redistricting changes game for Quayle
When Ben Quayle ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives, he outraged Democrats when he did so on a message declaring President Barack Obama to be the worst President in history.
Running in a heavily-favoured Republican riding, there was little possibility they could defeat Quayle, thus punishing him for what they considered to be an offensive message. (As Obama continues to stumble toward the conclusion of this Presidential term, it's becoming increasingly clear that such individuals were offended by Quayle's words because they are so nearly true.)
But as the 2012 elections approach, Democrats will now have a greater opportunity to defeat Quayle. Following redistricting in Arizona, Quayle's district is no longer heavily Republican. However, his district retains a narrow Republican advantage in voter registration.
Some may entertain the notion that Quayle was specifically targetted by Democrats -- two Democrats and an independent on the redistricting commission voted against a single Republican to approve the changes -- but this actually does not seem to be the case.
While the changes in Quayle's district are clearly a disadvantage to him, it does create a heavily-Republican district which currently has no incumbent.
This isn't to say there will be no controversy surrounding these changes. This is the first redistricting conducted under a new law in Arizona that assigns the authority to determine redistricting to independent commissions, as opposed to the state legislature.
This is an improvement. However, the law also requires that respect "communities of interest" while still observing geogrpahic and municipal political boundaries. This could provide the impetus for significant political manipulation of the process, although there is no evidence that is what has taken place in this case.
The only thing that has happened is that Ben Quayle will have to work a little harder to be reelected in 2012. There's nothing wrong with that.
When Ben Quayle ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives, he outraged Democrats when he did so on a message declaring President Barack Obama to be the worst President in history.
Running in a heavily-favoured Republican riding, there was little possibility they could defeat Quayle, thus punishing him for what they considered to be an offensive message. (As Obama continues to stumble toward the conclusion of this Presidential term, it's becoming increasingly clear that such individuals were offended by Quayle's words because they are so nearly true.)
But as the 2012 elections approach, Democrats will now have a greater opportunity to defeat Quayle. Following redistricting in Arizona, Quayle's district is no longer heavily Republican. However, his district retains a narrow Republican advantage in voter registration.
Some may entertain the notion that Quayle was specifically targetted by Democrats -- two Democrats and an independent on the redistricting commission voted against a single Republican to approve the changes -- but this actually does not seem to be the case.
While the changes in Quayle's district are clearly a disadvantage to him, it does create a heavily-Republican district which currently has no incumbent.
This isn't to say there will be no controversy surrounding these changes. This is the first redistricting conducted under a new law in Arizona that assigns the authority to determine redistricting to independent commissions, as opposed to the state legislature.
This is an improvement. However, the law also requires that respect "communities of interest" while still observing geogrpahic and municipal political boundaries. This could provide the impetus for significant political manipulation of the process, although there is no evidence that is what has taken place in this case.
The only thing that has happened is that Ben Quayle will have to work a little harder to be reelected in 2012. There's nothing wrong with that.
Monday, October 03, 2011
The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good
Republicans need to rally under a candidate, and cannot allow ideological vanity to bind them
Writing in an op/ed in The Daily Beast, Meghan McCain sounds an important alarm for Republicans eager to defeat President Barack Obama in 2012:
Rally behind a candidate. Do it quickly.
"Sarah Palin accused [Herman] Cain of being the 'flavor of the week,' and this is one of the rare times I agree with her," she writes. "The Republicans are suffering from what Bill Maher recently dubbed a 'promiscuous' problem with our candidates. We keep having one-night stands with politicians we think we only want to marry, and then get cold feet."
"The short list includes the likes of Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry with a possible addition of Chris Christie," she continues. "All of this excitement is soon followed by a quick fizzle of disappointment when these candidates look flawed under the spotlight of the media, incapable of pleasing the temperamental Republican base. It is as if we are more concerned with the drama of the electing a new prom king than concentrating on who the best person to beat Obama is."
McCain is precisely right to point this out as a serious problem, but she seems to fall short on elaborating why. Republicans actually don't have a good reason for it, either.
The reason, far too often, has turned out to be ideological vanity.
To date the favourites in the Republican primary have shifted from Mitt Romney, to Rick Perry, and now to Herman Cain. Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann have been promising candidates, but really only pretenders.
At each turn, Republicans have agonized over whether or not each candidate is the ideologically perfect conservative. In turn, both Romney and Perry have been found to be imperfect. Now it seems that it's Cain's turn.
And Cain will be found to be imperfect. Because he is imperfect. So are Romney, Perry, Pawlenty, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, et al.
In the search for the perfect conservative, Republicans may well cut themselves off from the best Presidential candidate. They should know this well already. In 2008, many conservative Republican voters didn't show up to vote for John McCain because he was deemed to be ideologically imperfect.
What was the result? President Barack Obama.
Republicans have already been bitten by this bit of political snobbery before. They shouldn't allow themselves to fall victim to it again.
To date, Cain appears like he may be the best conservative of all the candidates in the field, embodying each of the most important intellectual traditions of conservatism.
The remaining rational objections are not based on Cain's ideological characteristics, but of his political qualifications.
"We are a little more than three months away from the New Hampshire primary and Republicans need to start getting our act together. Cain has a very small window right now to utilize his momentum and prove that he should be the next GOP nominee," McCain notes. "But let’s face reality: as much as even I can find myself developing warm feelings toward Cain because he seems like a nice, charming and normal person, if that were the only qualifications for president, we should be nominating Zach Galifianakis. Although Cain has been outrageously successful as a businessman, he has almost no experience on politics and has never actually held public office."
"In the time of such extreme anti-Washington rhetoric, Cain may play like a good thing in the primary stump speeches. I admit that even I have found myself getting caught up in his moment," she continues. "But I assure you when the rubber starts hitting the road, voters are going to want someone with real experience in all areas of politics, especially when it comes to foreign policy, something Cain has quite no experience in (unless Godfather's Pizza delivers to Canada)."
Barack Obama didn't have any foreign policy experience either, and Americans still elected him President. Also, Cain's lack of experience in political office could prove to be refreshing for many voters.
Cain hasn't been subject to the horse trading that takes place on Capitol hill, and hasn't been subdued by the idea that everything is a matter of such horse trading.
This isn't to say that a relentlessly-uncompromising President is what would be best for America, or even that Cain would be such a President. Compromise that leads to, for example, a more equitable budget is far preferable than horse trading that leads to pork barreling.
Meghan McCain is precisely right that time is running out for the Republican Party to start giving its Presidential candidates a serious look. Hopefully she -- and all Republicans -- will remember that the search for the perfect candidate may well cost them their best candidate if they aren't careful.
Writing in an op/ed in The Daily Beast, Meghan McCain sounds an important alarm for Republicans eager to defeat President Barack Obama in 2012:
Rally behind a candidate. Do it quickly.
"Sarah Palin accused [Herman] Cain of being the 'flavor of the week,' and this is one of the rare times I agree with her," she writes. "The Republicans are suffering from what Bill Maher recently dubbed a 'promiscuous' problem with our candidates. We keep having one-night stands with politicians we think we only want to marry, and then get cold feet."
"The short list includes the likes of Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry with a possible addition of Chris Christie," she continues. "All of this excitement is soon followed by a quick fizzle of disappointment when these candidates look flawed under the spotlight of the media, incapable of pleasing the temperamental Republican base. It is as if we are more concerned with the drama of the electing a new prom king than concentrating on who the best person to beat Obama is."
McCain is precisely right to point this out as a serious problem, but she seems to fall short on elaborating why. Republicans actually don't have a good reason for it, either.
The reason, far too often, has turned out to be ideological vanity.
To date the favourites in the Republican primary have shifted from Mitt Romney, to Rick Perry, and now to Herman Cain. Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann have been promising candidates, but really only pretenders.
At each turn, Republicans have agonized over whether or not each candidate is the ideologically perfect conservative. In turn, both Romney and Perry have been found to be imperfect. Now it seems that it's Cain's turn.
And Cain will be found to be imperfect. Because he is imperfect. So are Romney, Perry, Pawlenty, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, et al.
In the search for the perfect conservative, Republicans may well cut themselves off from the best Presidential candidate. They should know this well already. In 2008, many conservative Republican voters didn't show up to vote for John McCain because he was deemed to be ideologically imperfect.
What was the result? President Barack Obama.
Republicans have already been bitten by this bit of political snobbery before. They shouldn't allow themselves to fall victim to it again.
To date, Cain appears like he may be the best conservative of all the candidates in the field, embodying each of the most important intellectual traditions of conservatism.
The remaining rational objections are not based on Cain's ideological characteristics, but of his political qualifications.
"We are a little more than three months away from the New Hampshire primary and Republicans need to start getting our act together. Cain has a very small window right now to utilize his momentum and prove that he should be the next GOP nominee," McCain notes. "But let’s face reality: as much as even I can find myself developing warm feelings toward Cain because he seems like a nice, charming and normal person, if that were the only qualifications for president, we should be nominating Zach Galifianakis. Although Cain has been outrageously successful as a businessman, he has almost no experience on politics and has never actually held public office."
"In the time of such extreme anti-Washington rhetoric, Cain may play like a good thing in the primary stump speeches. I admit that even I have found myself getting caught up in his moment," she continues. "But I assure you when the rubber starts hitting the road, voters are going to want someone with real experience in all areas of politics, especially when it comes to foreign policy, something Cain has quite no experience in (unless Godfather's Pizza delivers to Canada)."
Barack Obama didn't have any foreign policy experience either, and Americans still elected him President. Also, Cain's lack of experience in political office could prove to be refreshing for many voters.
Cain hasn't been subject to the horse trading that takes place on Capitol hill, and hasn't been subdued by the idea that everything is a matter of such horse trading.
This isn't to say that a relentlessly-uncompromising President is what would be best for America, or even that Cain would be such a President. Compromise that leads to, for example, a more equitable budget is far preferable than horse trading that leads to pork barreling.
Meghan McCain is precisely right that time is running out for the Republican Party to start giving its Presidential candidates a serious look. Hopefully she -- and all Republicans -- will remember that the search for the perfect candidate may well cost them their best candidate if they aren't careful.
Sunday, October 02, 2011
TDSB Criticisms Have the Kangaroos of the Far Left Hopping
With the far-left desperate to silence any criticial discussion of the Toronto District School Board's anti-discrimination curriculum, it was only a matter of time before things came to a head.
With the Toronto SUN printing the controversial ad by Charles McVety's Institute for Canadian Values, even after the National Post was cowed into printing an apology for it, the activists desperate to conceal the authoritarianism underlying the anti-discrimination curriculum have finally decided to swat a fly with a sledgehammer.
It was inevitable.
At least one blogger is bragging about having complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The clear goal is to harness the power of the state to shut down any discussion of the TDSB's anti-discrimination curriculum, whether it's actually age-appropriate, and whether or not the TDSB has violated the rights of parents.
The open letter, written by one Kim May of Sarnia, ON, actually includes some rather remarkable ramblings that seem entirely disconnected with the content of the ICV ad:
The demagogues and would-be demagogues, crusaders and would-be crusaders, of the far-left have become so indifferent to the concerns of others that they are now demanding that such people be silenced by the state.
If the full scope of the authoritarianism of the far-left wasn't on full display in the TDSB's locking out of parents, it's certainly going to be on full display if -- more likely when -- the Ontario Human Rights Commission decides to pursue far-left vengeance against Charles McVety in all its kangaroo court glory.
Juast as they have so many times before, they will take Charles McVety and make him a sympathetic figure in the eyes of freedom-loving Canadians. All this while they are so blinkered by their own ideology that they can't even see it.
With the Toronto SUN printing the controversial ad by Charles McVety's Institute for Canadian Values, even after the National Post was cowed into printing an apology for it, the activists desperate to conceal the authoritarianism underlying the anti-discrimination curriculum have finally decided to swat a fly with a sledgehammer.
It was inevitable.
At least one blogger is bragging about having complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The clear goal is to harness the power of the state to shut down any discussion of the TDSB's anti-discrimination curriculum, whether it's actually age-appropriate, and whether or not the TDSB has violated the rights of parents.
The open letter, written by one Kim May of Sarnia, ON, actually includes some rather remarkable ramblings that seem entirely disconnected with the content of the ICV ad:
"...you would have them drawn and quartered if you could...since you are ignorant and intolerant of difference."The extent to which the imaginations of such people has utterly run away with them.
"Have you learned nothing from WWII. You can't ship different people off to an camp somewhere, simply for being different. This has been tried in the past."
The demagogues and would-be demagogues, crusaders and would-be crusaders, of the far-left have become so indifferent to the concerns of others that they are now demanding that such people be silenced by the state.
If the full scope of the authoritarianism of the far-left wasn't on full display in the TDSB's locking out of parents, it's certainly going to be on full display if -- more likely when -- the Ontario Human Rights Commission decides to pursue far-left vengeance against Charles McVety in all its kangaroo court glory.
Juast as they have so many times before, they will take Charles McVety and make him a sympathetic figure in the eyes of freedom-loving Canadians. All this while they are so blinkered by their own ideology that they can't even see it.
The Single Thread That Unravels Joe McGinniss' Career
McGinniss' double-talk has destroyed his credibility
Once upon a time, Joe McGinniss was a reputable and respected journalist.
After The Rogue, he isn't anymore. He never will be again.
The full extent to which McGinniss' creepy obsession with Sarah Palin has destroyed him seems to be entirely lost on McGinniss, along with the fact that his double-speak regarding Palin has not escaped notice.
For example, McGinniss claimed in an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan that the linkage of his book to supermarket tabloids was the result of the National Enquirer publishing tales contained in his book, only to later admit that he used that publication as a source.
But that isn't McGinniss' most serious problem.
McGinniss' most serious problem is the single thread that unravels not only The Rogue, but McGinniss' entire career.
Two separate claims are made in The Rogue that, together, cannot be true. Only one or the other can be true.
In the book -- an assertion McGinniss has repeated at length during the rapidly-dwindling media interviews he's given in support of the book, he claims that Palin is a religious fanatic.
"She sounds stupid and she is stupid, so that part is real," McGinnis remarked. "This folksy, family values kind of thing, it's just the opposite. She's not folksy, she's not warm, she's not personable, she's not just the girl next door. She's a vengeful, mean spirited, somewhat paranoid woman who's also a religious fanatic."
The banal malice of McGinniss' words have long been typical of the manner in which she's approached by the left.
But, as The Rogue would also have it, Palin actually is not religious at all.
As revealled by an embarrassingly-fawning review in the Toronto Star:
It doesn't take a PHD in philosophy to recognize that both of these things can be true. One could be true. Or the other could be true. But not the two together.
So which one of these two possibilities is true? So far, it's a question that the few media outlets that have allowed his presence to pollute their broadcasts have so far declined to ask him.
With the media turning away from McGinniss, it's clear that they've figured out that the precise worth of his book is pure bullshit.
The fact that he can so rarely keep his story straight is just the icing on that particular pile of cow dung.
Once upon a time, Joe McGinniss was a reputable and respected journalist.
After The Rogue, he isn't anymore. He never will be again.
The full extent to which McGinniss' creepy obsession with Sarah Palin has destroyed him seems to be entirely lost on McGinniss, along with the fact that his double-speak regarding Palin has not escaped notice.
For example, McGinniss claimed in an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan that the linkage of his book to supermarket tabloids was the result of the National Enquirer publishing tales contained in his book, only to later admit that he used that publication as a source.
But that isn't McGinniss' most serious problem.
McGinniss' most serious problem is the single thread that unravels not only The Rogue, but McGinniss' entire career.
Two separate claims are made in The Rogue that, together, cannot be true. Only one or the other can be true.
In the book -- an assertion McGinniss has repeated at length during the rapidly-dwindling media interviews he's given in support of the book, he claims that Palin is a religious fanatic.
"She sounds stupid and she is stupid, so that part is real," McGinnis remarked. "This folksy, family values kind of thing, it's just the opposite. She's not folksy, she's not warm, she's not personable, she's not just the girl next door. She's a vengeful, mean spirited, somewhat paranoid woman who's also a religious fanatic."
The banal malice of McGinniss' words have long been typical of the manner in which she's approached by the left.
But, as The Rogue would also have it, Palin actually is not religious at all.
As revealled by an embarrassingly-fawning review in the Toronto Star:
"'There was no religion,' an insider reveals. 'There was nothing about God. There was no Christ. Nobody prayed. No Bibles. No crosses. None of that was ever there. Never.'"So McGinniss writes that Palin is, deep down, a fanatical religious fundamentalist. And he also writes that Palin's public displays of religious belief are a sham, because she and her family are not even remotely religious.
It doesn't take a PHD in philosophy to recognize that both of these things can be true. One could be true. Or the other could be true. But not the two together.
So which one of these two possibilities is true? So far, it's a question that the few media outlets that have allowed his presence to pollute their broadcasts have so far declined to ask him.
With the media turning away from McGinniss, it's clear that they've figured out that the precise worth of his book is pure bullshit.
The fact that he can so rarely keep his story straight is just the icing on that particular pile of cow dung.
Friday, September 30, 2011
What Time Do the Cows Come Home in Ontario?
Apparently, Nikki Holland will only deny smokes for votes until then
Ontario voters eager to hear the truth about the allegations that Liberal Party of Ontario Vice-President (Operations) bribing homeless people with cigarettes will only have to wait until the cows come home.
In reality, they're more than just "allegations". Audio recorded of Holland's comments have her admission in full.
"If anyone repeats this, I'll deny it until the cows come home," Holland remarked. "I have gone to a shelter in the riding of St Paul's with a carton of smokes and said 'I'll give them to you after you vote'. I have done that."
Once the recording came to light, Holland set about doing precisely what she said she would do: denying it. The recording has made that more than just a little awkward.
To account for that, Holland is claiming that what she said was "a joke". But there doesn't seem to be much reason to believe her.
She's also tried to spin the issue back on her political opponents by insisting that the NDP and Conservative Party do the same.
In the most amusing twist yet, Premier Dalton McGuinty responded not by doing what would have been expected of someone in his delicate position -- either collecting Holland's resignation or firing her from at least the campaign -- but has publicly accepted her apology.
"It was a bad joke in poor taste," McGuinty remarked. "She apologized for it."
It simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
It's only the most recent incident in a gaffe-ridden election campaign for McGuinty's Liberals, one that featured a staged photo-op at a closed factory and a lawsuit brought against the Ontario government by one of the very green energy companies McGuinty is championing as the future of the Ontario economy.
McGuinty's explanation for the staged photo-op didn't pass the laugh test, nor does his explanation for this scandal.
Especially damning is that Holland delivered these remarks at a training seminar for Liberal Party campaign workers. Even if Holland were joking -- and no one believes that she was -- if there are any Liberal campaign workers currently bribing homeless people with cigarettes, we know where they got the idea.
Nikki Holland cannot stay on as VP (Operations) of the Ontario Liberals, and if Dalton McGuinty continues to parrot her disingenuous explanation, he cannot stay on as leader of the party.
Both must go, before the cows come home.
Ontario voters eager to hear the truth about the allegations that Liberal Party of Ontario Vice-President (Operations) bribing homeless people with cigarettes will only have to wait until the cows come home.
In reality, they're more than just "allegations". Audio recorded of Holland's comments have her admission in full.
"If anyone repeats this, I'll deny it until the cows come home," Holland remarked. "I have gone to a shelter in the riding of St Paul's with a carton of smokes and said 'I'll give them to you after you vote'. I have done that."
Once the recording came to light, Holland set about doing precisely what she said she would do: denying it. The recording has made that more than just a little awkward.
To account for that, Holland is claiming that what she said was "a joke". But there doesn't seem to be much reason to believe her.
She's also tried to spin the issue back on her political opponents by insisting that the NDP and Conservative Party do the same.
In the most amusing twist yet, Premier Dalton McGuinty responded not by doing what would have been expected of someone in his delicate position -- either collecting Holland's resignation or firing her from at least the campaign -- but has publicly accepted her apology.
"It was a bad joke in poor taste," McGuinty remarked. "She apologized for it."
It simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
It's only the most recent incident in a gaffe-ridden election campaign for McGuinty's Liberals, one that featured a staged photo-op at a closed factory and a lawsuit brought against the Ontario government by one of the very green energy companies McGuinty is championing as the future of the Ontario economy.
McGuinty's explanation for the staged photo-op didn't pass the laugh test, nor does his explanation for this scandal.
Especially damning is that Holland delivered these remarks at a training seminar for Liberal Party campaign workers. Even if Holland were joking -- and no one believes that she was -- if there are any Liberal campaign workers currently bribing homeless people with cigarettes, we know where they got the idea.
Nikki Holland cannot stay on as VP (Operations) of the Ontario Liberals, and if Dalton McGuinty continues to parrot her disingenuous explanation, he cannot stay on as leader of the party.
Both must go, before the cows come home.
Authoritarian Post-modernism Oversteps Its Bounds
LGBT activists freaking out over Institute for Canadian Values ad
Across Canada, LGBT activists are up in arms over a full-page ad placed in the National Post by Charles McVety's Institute for Canadian Values.
In the ad, a young girl is pictured above a caption reading "I'm a girl. Don't teach me to question if I'm a boy, transexual, transgenered, intersexed or two-spirted."
A header at the top of the ad reads: "Please! Don't confuse me."
The ad is in opposition to the Toronto District School Board's anti-discrimination curriculum, which has garnered increased public attention since a planning calendar sent home for first grade students came to light. The calendar featured references to prostitution, transgendered people, AIDs, and female genital mutilation.
All of this and more... for six year olds.
The TDSB anti-discrimination curriculum insists that it's age-appropriate. A great many Torontonians -- and Canadians -- are coming to disagree.
LGBT activists quickly voiced their outrage that the ad would be printed, and immediately began to deploy their typical responses, accusing McVety of being a homophobe and a transphobe.
But as it turns out, the ad is entirely accurate. The accusations are merely bully words, intended to intimidate McVety out of the debate, and similarly intimidate anyone who may be inclined to agree with him.
This author is not inclined to agree with McVety very often on these sorts of issues. But your not-so-humble scribe does find one important point of agreement on this particular subject: the authoritarian approach of the TDSB to this curriculum is entirely unacceptable.
In the ad, the curriculum is directly quoted regarding the rights of parents in relation to this curriculum. The TDSB makes itself clear: it believes parents have no right to object to this curriculum.
Moreover, parents have the right to raise their children according to these beliefs. They have the right to decide what their children will be taught, for good or ill.
The TDSB does not recognize these rights. They've locked parents out, refusing them their parental rights. It's absolutely shameful.
Meanwhile, some LGBT activists have not only missed the point, but they've lost the plot.
A parody ad, produced by Toronto film maker and LGBT activist Chase Joynt, declares "I'm Chase. Teach me to question everything! Specifically that transgender, transsexual, intersexed and two-spirit are just some of my options."
More is wrong with Joynt's response than can be named in one place at one time.
The first is that Joynt is very clearly an adult. He appears to be in his late 20s, if not his 30s. As such, Joynt is mature enough in life that he can reflect on these issues and make these decisions with a full understanding of whatever consequences they may have.
In other words, while Joynt's own questioning nature -- if it is at all genuine -- is worthy of applause, but he is not a child. Not like the children the TDSB's anti-discrimination curriculum is aimed at.
Anyone who has had any dealings with children, whatsoever, know that children are far more impulsive than the vast majority of adults. Neither Joynt nor the demagogues at the TDSB have stopped for so much as an instant to wonder about a child who may -- thinking that the idea seems neat -- decide that they are transgendered, not having considered what impact that decision may have on their lives.
Which brings up the other area in which Joynt has entirely lost the plot. LGBT activists have long insisted -- and scienctific studies strongly support this -- that LGBT is not a lifestyle choice. They'd likely tell Joynt to go back and listen to his Lady Gaga CDs a little more closely, because gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals were "Born This Way".
These aren't "options", as Joynt suggests. They aren't "lifestyle choices", as far-right anti-LGBT activists insist.
“What’s crucial about any curriculum in regard to identity politics is that it’s providing a breadth of options and potentially the inclusion of LGBT rights in any curriculum at any level is that it affords another opinion,” Joynt insists. “While I think there is opportunity to speak to things such as when is age appropriate, the ability to learn about those identities is integral to our success as educators.”
If Joynt is really interested in fostering discussion about whether or not this curriculum is age-appropriate (and that would be welcome, indeed), the least he could do is not obscure this issue in his counter-ad.
In the end, this issue is very simple: the postmodern leftist ideology behind this curriculum has overstepped its bounds, adopted the trappings of authoritarianism, and violated the rights of parents.
If it's up to Charles McVety and the Institute for Canadian Values to rally ordinary Canadians to shove the footsoldiers of this grievance-mongering demagoguery back across the line, that is what will simply have to happen.
Across Canada, LGBT activists are up in arms over a full-page ad placed in the National Post by Charles McVety's Institute for Canadian Values.
A header at the top of the ad reads: "Please! Don't confuse me."
The ad is in opposition to the Toronto District School Board's anti-discrimination curriculum, which has garnered increased public attention since a planning calendar sent home for first grade students came to light. The calendar featured references to prostitution, transgendered people, AIDs, and female genital mutilation.
All of this and more... for six year olds.
The TDSB anti-discrimination curriculum insists that it's age-appropriate. A great many Torontonians -- and Canadians -- are coming to disagree.
LGBT activists quickly voiced their outrage that the ad would be printed, and immediately began to deploy their typical responses, accusing McVety of being a homophobe and a transphobe.
But as it turns out, the ad is entirely accurate. The accusations are merely bully words, intended to intimidate McVety out of the debate, and similarly intimidate anyone who may be inclined to agree with him.
This author is not inclined to agree with McVety very often on these sorts of issues. But your not-so-humble scribe does find one important point of agreement on this particular subject: the authoritarian approach of the TDSB to this curriculum is entirely unacceptable.
In the ad, the curriculum is directly quoted regarding the rights of parents in relation to this curriculum. The TDSB makes itself clear: it believes parents have no right to object to this curriculum.
"'Can a parent have their child accomodated out of human rights education (LGBTQ) based on religious grounds? NO'The problem is that the environment is already poisoned, and has been poisoned by the TDSB. Whether one likes or dislikes the religious beliefs of any number of people -- and there is much to dislike about religious beliefs that may lead one into homophobia -- the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to hold such beliefs.
'Should schools send notes or permission slips home before starting any classroom work on LGBTQ (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual/two-spirited, queer) issues? NO'
'Can teachers seek accomodation from teaching materials that may contradict their religious beliefs? NO'
'Can schools/teachers choose not to address controversial issues for fear of negative parent response? NO'
'Teachers are obligated to address all equity issues. Any ommisisions that maintain a non-inclusive curriculum and pedagogy are considered to foster a poisoned environment..."
Moreover, parents have the right to raise their children according to these beliefs. They have the right to decide what their children will be taught, for good or ill.
The TDSB does not recognize these rights. They've locked parents out, refusing them their parental rights. It's absolutely shameful.
Meanwhile, some LGBT activists have not only missed the point, but they've lost the plot.
More is wrong with Joynt's response than can be named in one place at one time.
The first is that Joynt is very clearly an adult. He appears to be in his late 20s, if not his 30s. As such, Joynt is mature enough in life that he can reflect on these issues and make these decisions with a full understanding of whatever consequences they may have.
In other words, while Joynt's own questioning nature -- if it is at all genuine -- is worthy of applause, but he is not a child. Not like the children the TDSB's anti-discrimination curriculum is aimed at.
Anyone who has had any dealings with children, whatsoever, know that children are far more impulsive than the vast majority of adults. Neither Joynt nor the demagogues at the TDSB have stopped for so much as an instant to wonder about a child who may -- thinking that the idea seems neat -- decide that they are transgendered, not having considered what impact that decision may have on their lives.
Which brings up the other area in which Joynt has entirely lost the plot. LGBT activists have long insisted -- and scienctific studies strongly support this -- that LGBT is not a lifestyle choice. They'd likely tell Joynt to go back and listen to his Lady Gaga CDs a little more closely, because gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals were "Born This Way".
These aren't "options", as Joynt suggests. They aren't "lifestyle choices", as far-right anti-LGBT activists insist.
“What’s crucial about any curriculum in regard to identity politics is that it’s providing a breadth of options and potentially the inclusion of LGBT rights in any curriculum at any level is that it affords another opinion,” Joynt insists. “While I think there is opportunity to speak to things such as when is age appropriate, the ability to learn about those identities is integral to our success as educators.”
If Joynt is really interested in fostering discussion about whether or not this curriculum is age-appropriate (and that would be welcome, indeed), the least he could do is not obscure this issue in his counter-ad.
In the end, this issue is very simple: the postmodern leftist ideology behind this curriculum has overstepped its bounds, adopted the trappings of authoritarianism, and violated the rights of parents.
If it's up to Charles McVety and the Institute for Canadian Values to rally ordinary Canadians to shove the footsoldiers of this grievance-mongering demagoguery back across the line, that is what will simply have to happen.
Ed Miliband to David: "Please Come Back"
With all the bad news piling up for Labour leader Ed Miliband, he could certainly use some good news.
The news he would welcome most is embracing his brother David back into his inner circle.
As Miliband prepares to promote a number of women within his shadow cabinet -- including Yvette Cooper -- what Miliband really covets is the return of his brother.
"David is a massive asset to our politics and our party," the younger Miliband declared. “And I’ve always said I’d be happy to have him back, I want to have him back. But in the end he’s got to decide what’s the right thing for him to do.”
After the 2010 Labour leadership contest, the elder Miliband decided the right thing for him to do was sit on the backbenches. But with Labour struggling in Parliament and suffering in the eyes of Britain's political class, Ed Miliband needds a game-changer.
The addition of David Miliband to his shadow cabinet could be that very game-changer. But it seems tension between the two siblings could be preventing that from happening.
“It was a difficult leadership contest that we had. It was difficult for us. The reason I stood is because I felt I had something distinctive to say and I said it yesterday [in my conference speech]," the younger Miliband explained. "That is was why I ran. That’s what I believe. That’s why I think society needs to change.”
For his own part, David Miliband is focused on grassroots organizing for a Labour Party that has come to tend to neglect that key part of political organizing.
“It is my way of supporting Ed, supporting the party and helping us back into Government," the elder Miliband explained. “He’s been very supportive, the party’s been supportive, which is good."
The problem for David Miliband is that the weak leadership being provided by his brother threatens to undermine any gains he makes through grassroots organizing. Perhaps it isn't merely Ed Miliband who needs his brother in the shadow cabinet. Perhaps David Miliband needs to be there to shore up his own gains.
Either way, the Miliband brothers are better off working together within the shadow cabinet. Even if David doesn't see that, Ed keenly does. How could he not?
Janeane Garofalo Starring In... Far-Left Racism-Obsessed Virtual Reality Moonbattery
When a would-be media figure is as marginal as Janeane Garofalo, they certainly face continual pressure to stay relevant.
For her own part, Garofalo has no idea how to do that. So when appearing on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, she decided to re-hash her greatest hits: accusing conservatives of racism.
It's something she tried before, when she accused the Tea Party of opposing the policies of US President Barack Obama out of "racism, straight-up". Her most recent dip into her arsenal of weaponized racism is a little more confusing. They support Republcian Presidential hopeful Herman Cain out of racism.
Get it? If they oppose a black man politically, they're racist. If they support a black man politically, they're racist. Garofalo's argument basically amounts to "they're racist, no matter what."
"Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one in the same," Garofalo declared. "People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert. And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say 'Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.'"
Olbermann being Olbermann, he declines to offer any critical comment or question of Garofalo's comments, even the one that seems entirely elementary to any rational human being.
(Considering that Olbermann began the segment by noting that Palin didn't focus on what GOP hopefuls were doing wrong in the debates, it's pretty clear that Olbermann is allowing his personal bias to absolutely overwhelm ration.)
To describe Garofalo's argument as childish is beyond understatement. But examining it logically for any more than two seconds immediately reveals something abotu Garofalo that rathional people... already knew.
As an argument, this is intellectually lazy. It's exceedingly intellectually lazy. It essentially amounts to virtual reality reasoning.
Originally posited by Norman Mailer, virtual reality reasoning describes a closed system of thought. The virtual reality thinker locks themselves into a narrow, compact realm of possibilities. Not only may no answer to any question be found that is not already programmed within the system, but no question may be asked that isn't already programmed into that system.
For Garofalo, the question is "why are conservatives racist?" The answer is "because conservatives are racist, no matter what."
In a previous outing on Olbermann's show, Garofalo suggests that someone may even be paying Cain to run for President. She offers absolutely no evidence other than her own demand that any visible minority give her their undying political allegiance.
It seems necessary to wonder whether Garofalo herself is the nut or the dolt in the "nuts and dolts"-themed segment until one realizes that she's both.
Any information that Garofalo is presented with -- including an impressive level of support for Cain's ideas within the Tea Party -- will, in her mind, immediately be warped and twisted to reach one conclusion: the Tea Party, Republicans and conservatives are all racist. No matter what.
And yet Janeane Garofalo wants to be the absolute arbiter of who does and does not have credibility. It will be a sad day for American politics if she ever actually achieves that level of influence.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The Left-Wing Media at Work, Continued
Far-left Vancouver rag The Georgia Straight is no stranger to Vancouver Club employee-strangling 9/11 "truth"er Darren Pearson. They didn't shy away from covering the Dick Cheney protest (both before and after the fact).
So why not a single, solitary mention of Pearson's brutish act?
So why not a single, solitary mention of Pearson's brutish act?
The Left-Wing Media At Work
There are plenty of decent reasons for the Canadian left to object to former US Vice President Dick Cheney's speech at the Vancouver Club in Vancouver, BC this week.
It certainly doesn't excuse some of the things that took place outside the Vancouver club.
Outside the club, protesters did what left-wing protesters in Canada have now adopted as their top tactic at times such as these: they accosted the people who had paid their hard-earned money for the opportunity to hear Cheney speak. They blocked the sidewalk, refused these citizens safe passage, obstructed access to public property, and in one extreme example, assaulted a staff member at the club.
Yet if one relied solely on the reporting by left-wing media outlets, one would think that none of this ever happened. One would think that entirely peaceful protesters were assaulted by Vancouver police.
You would never hear the story of one of their own, one Darren Pearson, wrapping his fingers around the neck of a Vancouver Club employee, who was attempting to help speech attendees find a way around the throng, and throttling him.
You would never hear from them the satisfaction that Pearson derived from the act, or the pleasure he's taking in the attention he's now receiving.
“It was so much fun,” Pearson remarked. “I can’t tell you how much fun I had. I was laughing my ass off, jumping into that mosh pit.”
“I call it fun," Person continued. "We wanted to draw people’s attention and show up to support our demands to have that evil bastard arrested for war crimes. If it bleeds, it leads. We got the media coverage we wanted.”
One would never hear a peep of this from Canada's far-left media. The Georgia Strait uploaded numerous YouTube videos of the protest, including some depicting what it considered the unwarranted actions of police officers clearing sidewalks to allow the citizens who very likely paid the lion's share of the cost of paving them. Rabble.ca featured an article penned by David P Ball complaining about police "roughing up" protesters.
Neither mention a single word about Pearson's actions, or about the man he assaulted. Not a single, solitary mention of the incident.
Do they approve of Pearson's actions, or are they just hoping that no one will take notice of them? It's difficult to say. But one way or the other, they're covering up Pearson's actions.
The cover-up is certainly at odds with the high standard of journalistic ethics Rabble purports to represent. An ad on the website (pictured left) describes them as "not just reporting", but "just reporting". As in their reporting embodies some principles of justice being elaborated on in some left-wing think tank who will twist it in whatever way necessary to benefit the left and put everyone else at a disadvantage.
In other words: victor's justice before any victory has ever actually been won.
In the case of Dick Cheney, even if one finds the allegations that he authorized torture in the US forces -- and this author agrees that many of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized by Cheney constitute torture -- there is the matter of precisely what they imagine the endgame to be.
As things currently stand, it isn't Cheney on trial.
There are certainly accusations outstanding against Cheney that he authorized torture. He doesn't deny them. But there is one key element missing in these people's endgame plan: a warrant.
If people such as Derrick O'Keefe were able to take Cheney into their custody tomorrow, as they imagine, and transport him to the Hague, as they imagine, Cheney would immediately be set free. It isn't up to Derrick O'Keefe to issue an arrest warrant for Cheney, and those to whom it is up to haven't issued that warrant.
In fact, O'Keefe and his merry band of showboaters would promptly wind up in custody for unlawful confinement; they have no authority to place Cheney under arrest.
Perhaps Dick Cheney should be standing trial in the Hague. That's for others to actually decide.
But the far-left media, for all its love of pinning violent incidents on their conservative opponents -- often under exceedingly self-generous pretenses -- should own up to and acknowledge the actions of Darren Pearson at the protest they themselves helped organize.
If they can't do this, they have no moral authority to denounce the actions Vancouver police did to assure the safety of people who had the right to access to the Vancouver Club and hear Dick Cheney speak.
Not that anyone should expect them to. It's just the way they operate.
It certainly doesn't excuse some of the things that took place outside the Vancouver club.
Outside the club, protesters did what left-wing protesters in Canada have now adopted as their top tactic at times such as these: they accosted the people who had paid their hard-earned money for the opportunity to hear Cheney speak. They blocked the sidewalk, refused these citizens safe passage, obstructed access to public property, and in one extreme example, assaulted a staff member at the club.
Yet if one relied solely on the reporting by left-wing media outlets, one would think that none of this ever happened. One would think that entirely peaceful protesters were assaulted by Vancouver police.
You would never hear from them the satisfaction that Pearson derived from the act, or the pleasure he's taking in the attention he's now receiving.
“It was so much fun,” Pearson remarked. “I can’t tell you how much fun I had. I was laughing my ass off, jumping into that mosh pit.”
“I call it fun," Person continued. "We wanted to draw people’s attention and show up to support our demands to have that evil bastard arrested for war crimes. If it bleeds, it leads. We got the media coverage we wanted.”
One would never hear a peep of this from Canada's far-left media. The Georgia Strait uploaded numerous YouTube videos of the protest, including some depicting what it considered the unwarranted actions of police officers clearing sidewalks to allow the citizens who very likely paid the lion's share of the cost of paving them. Rabble.ca featured an article penned by David P Ball complaining about police "roughing up" protesters.
Neither mention a single word about Pearson's actions, or about the man he assaulted. Not a single, solitary mention of the incident.
Do they approve of Pearson's actions, or are they just hoping that no one will take notice of them? It's difficult to say. But one way or the other, they're covering up Pearson's actions.
In other words: victor's justice before any victory has ever actually been won.
In the case of Dick Cheney, even if one finds the allegations that he authorized torture in the US forces -- and this author agrees that many of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized by Cheney constitute torture -- there is the matter of precisely what they imagine the endgame to be.
As things currently stand, it isn't Cheney on trial.
There are certainly accusations outstanding against Cheney that he authorized torture. He doesn't deny them. But there is one key element missing in these people's endgame plan: a warrant.
If people such as Derrick O'Keefe were able to take Cheney into their custody tomorrow, as they imagine, and transport him to the Hague, as they imagine, Cheney would immediately be set free. It isn't up to Derrick O'Keefe to issue an arrest warrant for Cheney, and those to whom it is up to haven't issued that warrant.
In fact, O'Keefe and his merry band of showboaters would promptly wind up in custody for unlawful confinement; they have no authority to place Cheney under arrest.
Perhaps Dick Cheney should be standing trial in the Hague. That's for others to actually decide.
But the far-left media, for all its love of pinning violent incidents on their conservative opponents -- often under exceedingly self-generous pretenses -- should own up to and acknowledge the actions of Darren Pearson at the protest they themselves helped organize.
If they can't do this, they have no moral authority to denounce the actions Vancouver police did to assure the safety of people who had the right to access to the Vancouver Club and hear Dick Cheney speak.
Not that anyone should expect them to. It's just the way they operate.
Sack Balls, Screw the Unions
Ed Balls helped create British fiscal mess, cannot remain Shadow Chancellor
If Labour leader Ed Miliband has a single, overriding problem, it comes in the embodiment of his Shadow Chancellor of the Excchequer, Ed Balls.
As a former Secretary to the Treasury -- charged with heloing manage Britain's public finances -- Balls had a direct hand in the profligacy that has led to the current state of the UK's finances.
Yet he has the temerity to stand as Shadow Chancellor, even as he continues to avoid admitting his part in the ballooning of Britain's public debt.
Terry Smith, the President of Tullet Prebon, has had enough. He says it's time for Balls to depart from Ed Miliband's shadow caucus.
“He is in total denial about the fact that Labour was running a deficit years before the financial crisis struck and seems to think that we can borrow and spend our way out of a crisis caused by excessive debt,” Smith declared. "There is no avoiding the fact that Labour ran a growing deficit from 2002 as the economic boom was heading towards its peak”.
Smith charges that Balls, as well as Gordon Brown and those others tasked with keeping Britain's finances on the rails, put political expediency far ahead of responsible fiscal management.
“Moreover, the government spending which led to this deficit before the banking crisis struck was wasteful, unproductive and cynically aimed at buying the loyalty of a growing dependent section of the population to the Labour Party,” Smith continued.
Ed Balls wasn't the only thing on Smith's mind. He also declared the pensions owed to public service employees to be unviable, and suggested they should be cut back.
"Unviable because we cannot sustain a system in which people can retire and live for another 20 years at the expense of the state,” he explained. “This was never the intention of the original social security systems and it has been made unviable by improvements in health care and life expectancy.”
Smith has presented Ed Miliband with some difficult choices. Certainly, labour unions will never tolderate a Labour leader who pushes back against their unsustainable pensions. Certainly, the left wing of the Labour Party will bristle at Ed Balls being relieved of his duties.
Smith suggests that Balls should be shuffled to the most junior shadow cabinet post in existence. Ed Miliband would be better off shuffling Ed Balls out of politics altogether.
Balls, and his allegiance to the unions, are relics of an old left-wing politics that has catastrophically failed in Britain. If the Labour Party is to survive -- and its survival is far from guaranteed -- they will need to find a new brand of left-wing politics that can account for and repair the damage done by Ed Balls and his associates.
If Labour leader Ed Miliband has a single, overriding problem, it comes in the embodiment of his Shadow Chancellor of the Excchequer, Ed Balls.
As a former Secretary to the Treasury -- charged with heloing manage Britain's public finances -- Balls had a direct hand in the profligacy that has led to the current state of the UK's finances.
Yet he has the temerity to stand as Shadow Chancellor, even as he continues to avoid admitting his part in the ballooning of Britain's public debt.
Terry Smith, the President of Tullet Prebon, has had enough. He says it's time for Balls to depart from Ed Miliband's shadow caucus.
“He is in total denial about the fact that Labour was running a deficit years before the financial crisis struck and seems to think that we can borrow and spend our way out of a crisis caused by excessive debt,” Smith declared. "There is no avoiding the fact that Labour ran a growing deficit from 2002 as the economic boom was heading towards its peak”.
Smith charges that Balls, as well as Gordon Brown and those others tasked with keeping Britain's finances on the rails, put political expediency far ahead of responsible fiscal management.
“Moreover, the government spending which led to this deficit before the banking crisis struck was wasteful, unproductive and cynically aimed at buying the loyalty of a growing dependent section of the population to the Labour Party,” Smith continued.
Ed Balls wasn't the only thing on Smith's mind. He also declared the pensions owed to public service employees to be unviable, and suggested they should be cut back.
"Unviable because we cannot sustain a system in which people can retire and live for another 20 years at the expense of the state,” he explained. “This was never the intention of the original social security systems and it has been made unviable by improvements in health care and life expectancy.”
Smith has presented Ed Miliband with some difficult choices. Certainly, labour unions will never tolderate a Labour leader who pushes back against their unsustainable pensions. Certainly, the left wing of the Labour Party will bristle at Ed Balls being relieved of his duties.
Smith suggests that Balls should be shuffled to the most junior shadow cabinet post in existence. Ed Miliband would be better off shuffling Ed Balls out of politics altogether.
Balls, and his allegiance to the unions, are relics of an old left-wing politics that has catastrophically failed in Britain. If the Labour Party is to survive -- and its survival is far from guaranteed -- they will need to find a new brand of left-wing politics that can account for and repair the damage done by Ed Balls and his associates.
Can Herman Cain Break the Democrats' Hold on the Black Vote
Cain boasts black appeal amidst talk of "brainwashing"
Accusations of black-on-black racism against Republcian Presidential hopeful Herman Cain may only be a matter of time.
In an interview with CNN, Cain suggested that black voters had been "brainwashed" into voting for the Democrats.
"African Americans have been brainwashed into not being open minded, not even considering a conservative point of view," Cain said. "I have received some of that same vitriol simply because I am running for the Republican nomination as a conservative. So it's just brainwashing and people not being open minded, pure and simple."
There should be little doubt that many Democrats have been quietly worried about the prospect of a Cain nomination, as it would rob them of their ability to accuse their Republican opponent of racism. Right now, it's become their chief political tactic.
They could always resort to accusing Cain of being a black-on-black racist. While such racism does exist, it lacks the instant credulity many grant to accusations of racism against a white candidate.
At best, Cain can hope to merely be accused of having a condescending attitude toward black voters. Some will even attempt to claim Cian has lost any confidence in black voters.
But this is simply not true.
Prior to his CNN comments, Cain speculated that he may be able to claim one-third or more of the black vote if he manages to win the Republican nomination. Without the black vote commandingly coming on side for Obama, Obama's chances of winning reelection in 2012 would narrow considerably.
“The African-American vote, I am confident, based upon black people that run into, black people that used to call my radio show, black people that have signed up on my website to support me. I believe, quite frankly, that my campaign, I will garner a minimum of a third of the black vote in this country and possibly more,” Cain said.
Even the possibility of this must have Democrats running scared. They're already keen to insist that Cain cannot win the Republcian nomination, let alone the Presidency.
Faced with the prospect of losing their grip on the black vote, they'll pull out all the stops to make sure that can never happen.
Accusations of black-on-black racism against Republcian Presidential hopeful Herman Cain may only be a matter of time.
In an interview with CNN, Cain suggested that black voters had been "brainwashed" into voting for the Democrats.
"African Americans have been brainwashed into not being open minded, not even considering a conservative point of view," Cain said. "I have received some of that same vitriol simply because I am running for the Republican nomination as a conservative. So it's just brainwashing and people not being open minded, pure and simple."
There should be little doubt that many Democrats have been quietly worried about the prospect of a Cain nomination, as it would rob them of their ability to accuse their Republican opponent of racism. Right now, it's become their chief political tactic.
They could always resort to accusing Cain of being a black-on-black racist. While such racism does exist, it lacks the instant credulity many grant to accusations of racism against a white candidate.
At best, Cain can hope to merely be accused of having a condescending attitude toward black voters. Some will even attempt to claim Cian has lost any confidence in black voters.
But this is simply not true.
Prior to his CNN comments, Cain speculated that he may be able to claim one-third or more of the black vote if he manages to win the Republican nomination. Without the black vote commandingly coming on side for Obama, Obama's chances of winning reelection in 2012 would narrow considerably.
“The African-American vote, I am confident, based upon black people that run into, black people that used to call my radio show, black people that have signed up on my website to support me. I believe, quite frankly, that my campaign, I will garner a minimum of a third of the black vote in this country and possibly more,” Cain said.
Even the possibility of this must have Democrats running scared. They're already keen to insist that Cain cannot win the Republcian nomination, let alone the Presidency.
Faced with the prospect of losing their grip on the black vote, they'll pull out all the stops to make sure that can never happen.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
"No Violence Was Had", He Says
Over the past few days, it's become increasingly difficult not to pick on Jim Parrot. Your not-so-humble author is trying, but Parrot is begging on the thunder.
Over the past few days, Parrot has been giddily obsessive over the recent visit to Vancouver by Dick Cheney. Speaking at the Vancouver Club, Cheney attracted the usual -- and in this author's honest opinion, not-entirely-unjustifiable -- outrage from Canada's left. 250 people showed up to demand his arrest.
Jim Parrot was one of them. This would be largely innocuous if not for a rather intriguing passage in blog post about it:
"No violence was had, although one middle-aged woman guest with a 50's perm that could cut glass got her purse caught in a camera as she wormed through the crowd. She yanked the purse with a violence that could only come from fear. She took a wayward swing at the poor camera guy. That was all I saw."As it turns out, this comment is flagrantly false. Stunningly false.
Local 9/11 "truth"er Darren Pearson, at some point during the inevitable frenzy, saw fit to seize a Vancouver Club employee around the neck and throttle him.
Not so much as a mention of the assault -- immortalized in the form of photo evidence -- at Let Freedom Rain.
For his own part, Darren Pearson feels absolutely no shame for his assault on the unnamed Vancouver Club employee, who reportedly suffered minor injuries. In fact, Pearson has publicly stated that it was "fun" for him.
At a time like this one would even see fit to question the tenor of the pre-speech coverage at LFR, and ask whether it's fair to take a page out of the left's play book and ask if Jim Parrot himself had any hand in encouraging the assault. a blog post originally entitled "Leah Costello is cancer on Vancouver" (the title was since changed). Looking at how liberally Parrot has proven to be willing to spread the blame for "words of hate", it seems to his own standard bill. Other mentions of the Vancouver Club on LFR are too vile to be reproduced here -- which is really saying something.
At best, Jim Parrot needs to account for his claims there were no violence when some of those present saw fit to assail not club manager Leah Costello, not Dick Cheney, but club staff.
At worst, Jim Parrot should apply his own rhetorical habits to himself and ask if he could be blamed for encouraging the violence.
Given past dealigns with the Let Freedom Rain proprietor, one should expect neither.
Although, credit where credit is due -- Jim Parrot is right about one thing: the banana-throwing incident involving Wayne Simmonds isn't just "a lapse in judgment", it seems inconceivable to consider it anything but pre-medidated, especially when one considers the typical shortage of fresh produce at hockey games.
And it's entirely justifiable to be outraged over a homophobic remark directed at Sean Avery... but let's not forget Avery's own foray into on-ice racism.
Oilers fans -- and especially Georges Larague -- won't forget anytime soon.
So, What's the Deal With Canada's Reputation? Redux
Really bothers them.
In an etching at Dr Dawg's kennel, John Cross has evidently taken umbrage at your not-so-humble author taking some time out to acknowledge the fact.
As it turns out, Cross expected that Canada would fare poorly in any attempt to measure and compare the global reputations of the world's countries. He was -- and still is -- one of the very Canada-bashers now absorbing a healthy dosage of crow.
Not that they aren't doing whatever they can to try to wriggle free of the ultimate implications of the results of the survey. Cross complains that, of all things, human rights was not featured as a subject of the survey. Apparently, in the mind of John Cross, that is some kind of game breaker.
As in so many things, Cross has apparently declined to acknowledge which way the global wind is blowing. In a world where the United Nations human rights council is populated by the worst human rights abusers in the world, it seems that human rights has become devalued as the currency of global morality.
This is very unfortunate, particularly for Canada. If the UN and its apologists had any sense of moral probity in relation to these important principles, Canada would be one of a couple dozen countries in the world considered eligible to chair that particular committee.
Unless one considers the myth of Omar Khard's torture -- for which there is no evidence -- or the myth of Canadian involvement in torture in Afghanistan -- again, for which there is no evidence.
Cross also commits a genetic fallacy in attempting to attack the source of the information used to compile the Reputation Institute's report. He claims that the survey used only respondents from G8 countries, but this is false. The report was compiled from responses from 42,000 respondents worldwide.
It's not at all unfair to keep in mind that John Cross is an individual who does exceedingly poorly with any facts that refute whatever popular far-leftist narrative he may be pushing at any given time.
His favourite seems to be that of man-made climate change, and it behooves a responsible thinker to remember that Cross has been an apologist for climategate, and invested considerable energy in propping up the long-disproven hockey stick model of climate change; a model long shown to have absolutely zero scientific merit, and was reached through omitting an entire time period.
So, yeah. John Cross and evidence. Not really bosom buddies.
Which is the amusing thing about it all. Cross and his cohorts in Canada's far-left have obsessively insisted that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been allegedly-disastrous for Canada's global reputation.
What they've never offered is the evidence. Never offered any evidence that Canada's global reputation is suffering; never offered any evidence that it's because of Stephen Harper.
And now that it's been shown that Canada's reputation has suffered no less than each and every country governed by the kind of welfare state government they want Canada's to emulate, they're all-too eager to simply dispense with the evidence, even if they know deep down that they can't.
Deep down, John Cross simply must know that he can't sweep this one under the rug, although it is amusing watching him try.
Britain Can't Afford Any More PFIs
Britain can't afford any more debt
Writing in an op/ed in The Guardian, Colin Cram demonstrates a very real gift for missing the point.
Writing on the topic of Private Finance Initiatives, Cram questions the critical attitude of the current Conservative Party government toward PFIs.
For the uninitiated, Private Finance Initiatives were largely used by Labour Party governments to hide billions of pounds in public spending effectively off the national books.
Cram writes:
And there's a very good reason for them to reject PFIs:
Britain simply can't afford any more debt. As of July 2011 the UK's public debt was 61.4% of its GDP. If the government were to expropriate everything produced on the Isles this year to pay down the public debt Britain would not be able to feed its population.
Cram goes on to suggest that PFIs had given Britain more up-to-date hospitals, schools, and other public assets than otherwise would have been possible. But this is actually flagrantly untrue. If anything, PFIs simply gave the British government a means to escape accountability for running up the public debt.
Any of the goals accomplished by PFIs -- such as attracting private investment in public assets -- can be done better under a system that doesn't serve to evade public accountability.
Colin Cram shouldn't be criticizing the David Cameron government for discarding PFIs as a means of funding public projects. They should be commended for it, and any philosophical contradictions are purely of Cram's own imagination.
Writing in an op/ed in The Guardian, Colin Cram demonstrates a very real gift for missing the point.
Writing on the topic of Private Finance Initiatives, Cram questions the critical attitude of the current Conservative Party government toward PFIs.
For the uninitiated, Private Finance Initiatives were largely used by Labour Party governments to hide billions of pounds in public spending effectively off the national books.
Cram writes:
"The criticism of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) being levelled by some government ministers is ironic in that it was introduced by the previous Conservative government.Apparently Cram has failed to discern even the most basic distinction: the Labour Party opposed the use of PFIs while they were in opposition, then promptly set to using them while in government. The Tories opposed PFIs while in opposition, and maintained that opposition while in government.
Norman Lamont was chancellor of the exchequer at the time, closely followed by Ken Clarke, under whom the initiative prospered. As Professor Colin Talbot points out, PFIs were created to address a very big and real problem.
When in opposition in the 1990s, the Labour party was critical of the initiative, expressing some similar concerns to those of some of today's government ministers. However, when Labour came to power, it realised that if it wished for infrastructure improvements to schools, roads, prisons and hospitals, for example, it had little option but to adopt it. It therefore re-badged the scheme the Private Public Parternship (PPP) and accelerated its use."
And there's a very good reason for them to reject PFIs:
Britain simply can't afford any more debt. As of July 2011 the UK's public debt was 61.4% of its GDP. If the government were to expropriate everything produced on the Isles this year to pay down the public debt Britain would not be able to feed its population.
Cram goes on to suggest that PFIs had given Britain more up-to-date hospitals, schools, and other public assets than otherwise would have been possible. But this is actually flagrantly untrue. If anything, PFIs simply gave the British government a means to escape accountability for running up the public debt.
Any of the goals accomplished by PFIs -- such as attracting private investment in public assets -- can be done better under a system that doesn't serve to evade public accountability.
Colin Cram shouldn't be criticizing the David Cameron government for discarding PFIs as a means of funding public projects. They should be commended for it, and any philosophical contradictions are purely of Cram's own imagination.
Herman Cain vs Morgan Freeman, Left-Wing Intellectual Laziness & Tea Party Racism
With the 2012 Republican Party primary elections dawning ever-nearer on the horizon, it's a charge one can expect to hear more and more often from an increasingly-unimaginative left:
Tea Party racism.
It's a mantra that dwells on the surface of the American left-wing psyche as their President leads the United States deeper and deeper into an economic morass, and as they find themselves increasingly bereft of any new ideas.
Looking for a way out of what seems like an inevitable defeat in November 2012, their imaginations will continually bring them down to what has been and remains their last, best hope. Charges of Tea Party racism.
In the past, they've come from such "luminaries" of the entertainment world as Janeane Garofalo. This time they're coming from someone far more talented and far more accomplished. Morgan Freeman's talents don't lend credulity to his accusations any more than his accusations diminish his talent.
"Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term," Freeman insisted. "What underlines that? Screw the country. We are going to do ... whatever we can to get this black man outta here."
"It is a racist thing," Freeman continued. "It just shows the weak, dark underside of America. We're supposed to be better than that. That's why all those people were in tears when he was elected."
Freeman apparently hasn't stopped for so much as an instant to consider the fact that the Tea Party opposes President Barack Obama because they disagree with his politics as if it were even a possibility.
But with the left unable to conjure any more than a handful of examples of Tea Party racism -- and always among individuals who either dwell on the periphery of the movement, or who are promptly banished forthright -- these are arguments that simply don't carry any credibility.
Herman Cain is a black man. But he isn't buying it.
He simply notes that Morgan Freeman has never been to a Tea Party event. His experience with the Tea Party movement has indicated the precise opposite of Freeman's comments.
"They know I bring my message from my heart and from my head, and they're responding to it," Cain declared.
In fact, it's Cain's success in front of Tea Party crowds that is more threatening to Morgan Freeman's narrative than anything. And it's likely one of the reasons that the left is determined to believe that Cain cannot win the primary election, let alone a 2012 showdown with Obama.
They're foolish to count Herman Cain out, and doubly foolish to do it merely to preserve what is a low-road political narrative in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)